The next infamous whistleblower has emerged to challenge the morality of a center of power. Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee, testified before the U.S. Senate today that the tech giant was choosing to “prioritize its profits over people.” What’s most interesting about this exposé is that the alleged actions are not currently against the law or even breaching the spirit of regulation. What then is the point of the whistleblowing? The requested remedy is to set a new legislative standard of moral turpitude for a private company.
The question is: upon what disposition of natural law is this new moral standard to be based?
There are only two possible ideologies on which righteousness of purpose can be measured or assessed. There is a God, or there is no God. All ultimate conclusions of protection for the common good result in projection from one or the other of these theories of belief. The dysfunctional societal and governmental friction stemming from the decay of common respect for each other indicates that both belief systems are out of line with their own basis of natural law. The need of correction in the disposition of moral structure is evident in both philosophies.
Movements adhering to the existence of God rely upon doctrines handed down by rabbis, apostles, and prophets. Christians believe God created Adam as a perfect soul. He did not create the earth as some sort of game preserve with a game warden that He would occasionally visit. He had a purpose for his creation. Adam was given dominion over the creatures. Eve was created as an equal partner to Adam. Families are the moral unit of society. Mankind, in the aggregate, is God’s desired relationship. Adam chose to disobey God. Original sin entered the world. Christ died for sin putting God and mankind back into proper disposition of alignment. “The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of self-realization…I am my own God.” (My Utmost for His Highest Oswald Chambers)
Movements adhering to atheism have no scripture of authenticity upon which to rely. Therefore, they are continually defining the premise of God through themselves. In the case of governments, their definition of morality in the absence of God is their best attempt collectively to determine righteousness through their own wisdom as their own gods. The danger in this scenario is when the sole decision-makers are the composite of elite media, big government, and big tech. They are limited in their capability of drafting universal moral codes when freedom and transparency are incorporated as key elements. Freedom, in particular, threatens the power and control they so desire.
The sequence of secular thought on what is moral, and what is not, can flow without obstruction only when there is standardization in society. Standardization of society impedes freedom and mankind’s individual destiny ordained by God. To impose standardization, communism prohibits religion.
Those who deny God as a reality of principle force and effect must explain not only the meaning of life, but why the universe exists. If life sprang from primordial ooze by accident, then all results of evolution are determinative by survival of the fittest. Amoebas evolved into the diversity of living organisms that ultimately resulted in Homo sapiens.
Whether by creation or evolution, the species of mankind was the first mammal to manage and alter its environment rather than just react to it. Society then emerged through the same evolutionary process of survival of the fittest. Dominance and power are natural critical purposes of objective for the advancement of self-centered security. These self-serving means are the essence of the problem today as a result of either sins of the flesh or evolutionary axioms.
Big tech and big government defining morality in the absence of Godly virtue is a virtual conflict of interest.
Ms. Haugen referred to cigarette smoking as a comparable product of American business that ultimately had to be regulated and restrained. Big tech is unique in that its products impact mental health, emotions, child development, and prurient tendencies. Such mental and emotional motives can only be protected through spiritual values.
This conflict of foundational belief systems boiled to the surface in the most recent gubernatorial debate last week in Virginia. Upset with the question from a parent in the audience in reference to the content of textbooks being used in the Virginia Public School System, Democratic nominee and former Governor Terry McAuliffe stated, “we can’t let parents tell teachers what to teach our children.” The issue of family authority is now front and center in the campaign.
What then does all this mean? The complexity of government, at times frustrated by the revolutionary concept of self-rule, can actually be reconciled very simply. Leaders must trust in a calling greater than themselves not defined by themselves. Any pursuit to define morality as having emerged from the ether of a universe with no purpose is an exercise doomed to futility. A source of no purpose cannot produce, even in theory, a universal righteous purpose.
John Adams stated that only a moral and religious people can govern with moral purpose.
Most would agree that our country is struggling with the proper alignment of beliefs, policy, and moral righteousness. Whether the issue be the regulation of big tech, raising the debt ceiling, allowing states the authority under the Tenth Amendment to determine local matters for themselves, or the greater question of diversity in democracy, facing the disposition of realignment requires facing the reality of our own foundational belief systems.
Every citizen of this great country owes themselves the reward of commitment to truth. This decision on truth is that in which one trusts the destiny of their children.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?